alphee: I got it but was not sure until I saw the solution and not until the end as I stopped at 23.♖h3. I spent a lot of time eliminating 19.♘xf6 for which I could not find the most appropriate answer for black. My guess was black would play something like 19...gxf6 20. ♗xh7+ ♔h8 21. ♖h3 ♖f7 22. ♗g8+ ♔xg8 23. ♕g6+ ♔f8 but was not sure. I did'nt explore the 19...♖xf6 variation as it was followed by 20. ♗xh7+ ♔h8 21. ♖h3 and 19.♕xf6 didn't look as an option. Hence OTB I would have played ♘g5 more by elimination than by conviction.

Cannon Fodder: <chessmoron: There's a lot interchangeable moves here after 19...fxg6.
19...h6 avoids mate but Ne6 and Black's rook will eventually get captured.>

Thanks for posting your analysis, chessmoron. So, is it correct that black, with better play, could cut his losses to going down an exchange? (Not that I'm trying to say winning an exchange isn't important, especially with so much initiative on white's side).

It's a great puzzle anyway. I'll have to make a mental note of this "clearance sac," since I chose Nxf6.

Fezzik: Regarding the benefit of 19 Rg3 vs Ng5... 19.Ng5!! scores aesthetically higher than does 19.Rg3. However, aesthetics in chess have been pretty much removed by computer calculations.

I'd give full marks to both but prefer the ingenious knight sac. After all, it was the sac that made this game famous. If Rubinstein had simply played 19.Rg3, we wouldn't be looking at the position now!

Fisheremon: <TrueBlue><Fezzik: Regarding the benefit of 19 Rg3 vs Ng5... 19.Ng5!! scores aesthetically higher than does 19.Rg3. However, aesthetics in chess have been pretty much removed by computer calculations.> Perhaps, you didn't read my messages, I'd remind again. Aesthetically 19.Rg3!!, because it leads to a mate attack, 19.Ng5 looked nice, but in the variation 18...Re8 you don't get a mate attack.

More aesthetically must be 18.Nf6+!! (just after Black's blunder 17...f6) leading to immediate mate end.

Check It Out: Black's opening seemed suspect. Allowing the white light squared bishop and queen to bear down on h7 and the dark squared bishop's control of the a1-h8 diagonal, didn't seem very sound. All it took was a nice knight sac at g5 to rip black's kingside apart, in a beautiful finish.

backrank: A splendid, albeit not very surprising finish, since Black has left his K-side entirely undefended by his pieces. To me, it is more surprising how a grandmaster like Janowsky can do such a strategic misjudgement.

Rubinstein - one of the best players never to ascend to be world champion. His games are works of art.>

Truly spoken. His combinations are the cleanest, most elegant of any player. But the genius is not so much the combination itself but getting to such positions. (Similar to what Spielmann said of Alekhine.)

1971: I love these kinds of positions where you just know the kingside attack is coming and it will be swift and crushing. Center closed and black's minors ineffective on the queenside. Just asking for it. Kasparov has an interesting way of looking at the board, he cuts it in half vertically and whichever side he has the piece play advantage is where he attacks. Skill is consciously drawing and tying down the enemy pieces deep in one wing (i.e attacking a backward pawn - impulsive, impatient players will sometimes just abandon their weakness and embark on a bankrupt counter attack which only hastens defeat) then quickly switching the attack to the side where they're helpless. Or noticing pieces are awkwardly placed and finding a plan that never lets them out of their cord, by closing (or opening!) the center for example, Karpov style.

Even better, masterful even, is playing like Anand and basing your entire strategy on just <one> bad enemy piece, a knight with no squares, or a bishop on the wrong diagonal.

A piece placement advantage can be a fleeting one though, and must be vigilantly exploited or leveraged into a stronger threat.

One way avoiding this happening to oneself is #1 king safety and good, solid preparation and understanding the plans and piece placement of your openings. Also fighting for initiative early, not letting the opponent force concessions, like Carlsen does so unassumingly to everyone. Give him one concession and he'll start becoming very demanding at the negotiating table.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.